肯尼迪于1960年对大休斯顿部长协会的演讲

肯尼迪于1960年对大休斯顿部长协会的演讲 英文版

Reverend Meza, Reverend Reck,

I'm grateful for your generous invitation to state my views.

While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that I believe that we have far more critical issues in the 1960 campaign; the humiliating treatment of our President and Vice President by those who no longer respect our power—the hungry children I saw in West Virginia, the old people who cannot pay their doctors bills, the families forced to give up their farms—an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space. These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues—for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barrier.

But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured—perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again—not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me—but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President—should he be Catholic—how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference, and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him, or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accept instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials, and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been—and may someday be again—a Jew, or a Quaker, or a Unitarian, or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that led to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today, I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you—until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped apart at a time of great national peril.

Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end, where all men and all churches are treated as equals, where every man has the same right to attend or not to attend the church of his choice, where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind, and where Catholics, Protestants, and Jews, at both the lay and the pastoral levels, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood. That is the kind of America in which I believe.

And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe, a great office that must be neither humbled by making it the instrument of any religious group nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding it—its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a President whose views on religion are his own private affair, neither imposed upon him by the nation, nor imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.

I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the first amendment's guarantees of religious liberty; nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so. And neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test, even by indirection. For if they disagree with that safeguard, they should be openly working to repeal it.

I want a Chief Executive whose public acts are responsible to all and obligated to none, who can attend any ceremony, service, or dinner his office may appropriately require of him to fulfill; and whose fulfillment of his Presidential office is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual, or obligation.

This is the kind of America I believe in—and this is the kind of America I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we might have a divided loyalty, that we did not believe in liberty, or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened—I quote—"the freedoms for which our forefathers died."

And in fact this is the kind of America for which our forefathers did die when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches—when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom—and when they fought at the shrine I visited today, the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died Fuentes, and McCafferty, and Bailey, and Badillo, and Carey—but no one knows whether they were Catholics or not. For there was no religious test there.

I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition—to judge me on the basis of 14 years in the Congress, on my declared stands against an Ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools—which I attended myself. And instead of doing this, do not judge me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we all have seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries, and rarely relevant to any situation here. And always omitting, of course, the statement of the American Bishops in 1948 which strongly endorsed Church-State separation, and which more nearly reflects the views of almost every American Catholic.

I do not consider these other quotations binding upon my public acts. Why should you?

But let me say, with respect to other countries, that I am wholly opposed to the State being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or prosecute the free exercise of any other religion. And that goes for any persecution, at any time, by anyone, in any country. And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those nations which deny their Presidency to Protestants, and those which deny it to Catholics. And rather than cite the misdeeds of those who differ, I would also cite the record of the Catholic Church in such nations as France and Ireland, and the independence of such statesmen as De Gaulle and Adenauer.

But let me stress again that these are my views. For contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic.

I do not speak for my church on public matters; and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as President, if I should be elected, on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject, I will make my decision in accordance with these views—in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

But if the time should ever come—and I do not concede any conflict to be remotely possible—when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do likewise.

But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith; nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.

If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I'd tried my best and was fairly judged.

But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser, in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.

But if, on the other hand, I should win this election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the Presidency—practically identical, I might add, with the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For without reservation, I can, solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution—so help me God.

肯尼迪于1960年对大休斯顿部长协会的演讲 中文版

米扎牧师、雷克牧师：

非常感谢你们盛情邀请我来谈谈自己的观点。

尽管所谓宗教问题是今晚的主要话题，但我想从一开始就强调，我们在1960年的选举中还有许多重大问题要面对：那些不再尊重我们权力的人对我们的总统和副总统的侮辱性对待，我在西佛吉尼亚州见到的饥饿儿童，付不起医疗费的老人;被迫放弃农场的家庭，一个有太多贫民窟和太少学校的美国，以及一个迟迟不能涉足月球和外太空的美国。这些都是可能左右本届竞选的实际问题。而这些都不是宗教问题，因为战争、饥饿、无知和绝望并不知道什么是宗教壁垒。

但是因为我是天主教徒，而从未有过天主教徒当选总统，所以本届竞选中的实际问题变得模糊不清，这在某些不负责任的地区或许是有意为之。因此，我显然有必要再次说明，问题不在于我信仰哪种宗教(因为这应该只对我个人具有重要性)，而在于我信任哪种美国。

我信任的美国应当是政教绝对分离;应当是没有天主教教长会告诉总统(如果总统是天主教徒)如何行动，也没有新教牧师会告诉其教民选举谁;应当是没有教会或教会学校得到任何公共资金或政治性优惠;应当是没有人仅仅因为其宗教信仰不同于对其有任命权的总统或不同于对其有选择权的人而被拒绝担任公职。

我信任的美国应当是在公务上既非天主教、新教，也非犹太教;应当是没有公务人员就公共政策请示罗马教皇、全国教会理事会或任何其他神职机构，或者接受其指示;应当是没有宗教团体试图将其意志直接或间接地强加于广大民众或公职人员的公务行为;应当是宗教自由不可分割，即违背一种宗教的行为当视为违背所有宗教的行为。

尽管今年的怀疑对象可能是天主教徒，但其他年份的怀疑对象则曾经是犹太教徒，或者是贵格教徒、唯一神派教徒或浸礼教徒，而且可能有朝一日再来一次。例如，佛吉尼亚州的浸礼教传教士骚乱催生了杰斐逊区的宗教自由法案。今天我可能是受害者，而明天的受害者就可能是你，如此轮回，直到我们和谐社会的整体结构在巨大的民族劫难中四分五裂。

最后，我信任的美国应当是宗教排他现象有朝一日会终结;应当是平等对待所有人和所有宗教;应当是人人都有平等的权利选择加入或不加入某宗教;应当是没有拥护天主教的投票，没有反对天主教的投票，也没有任何形式的集团投票;应当是天主教徒、新教教徒和犹太教徒(包括普通信徒和牧师级信徒)摒弃过去那种妨碍工作的鄙视和分裂的态度，转而弘扬美国的兄弟情谊理念。这就是我所信任的那种美国。

这代表着我所信任的总统职务，这一重要职务必须是既不会因充当任一宗教集团的工具而蒙受耻辱，也不会因擅自阻止任一宗教团体的成员担任该职务而黯然失色。我信任的总统应当是其宗教观点是他自己的私人事务，他既不会将其宗教观点强加于国家，也不会作为任职的条件接受国家强加给他的宗教观点。

我不会拥护暗中破坏《第一修正案》中保证宗教自由之规定的总统。我们的制衡制度也不允许他这样做。我也不会拥护那些通过以宗教作为任职检验标准(即便是以间接方式)来暗中破坏《宪法》第六条的人。他们如果不同意这种保护法案，就应当站出来公开争取将其废除。

我想要的总统应当是其公务行为对所有团体负责，却不对任何团体承担义务;应当是可以出席与其职位相适应的任何仪式、礼拜或宴会;应当是其总统就职誓言的履行，不受任何宗教宣誓、礼仪或义务的限制或左右。

这就是我所信任的美国，是我在南太平洋为之战斗的美国，是我的兄弟在欧洲为之牺牲的美国。当时，无人提出我们可以有‘分裂的忠诚’，无人提出我们‘不信仰自由’，也无人提出我们属于不忠诚的团体，而该团体威胁着‘我们的前辈为之牺牲的自由’。

实际上，这就是我们的前辈为之牺牲的美国。他们曾经逃到这里以躲避拒绝劣势宗教成员任职的宗教检验誓言;他们曾经为维护《宪法》《权利法案》和《弗吉尼亚宗教自由法案》而战;他们曾经在我今天访问的圣地阿拉莫战斗。与鲍威和克罗基特并肩战死的还有麦克卡弗蒂、贝利和凯里。但是，无人知道他们是不是天主教徒，因为在阿拉莫没有宗教检验。

今晚，我请你们按照这种传统来评判我。你们的评判可以根据我在国会工作14年的记录，可以根据我反对一位驻梵蒂冈大使的公开立场、反对违反宪法资助教区学校的公开立场以及反对公立学校举行任何联合抵制活动(我自己也参加过这种活动)的公开立场。但是，请不要根据我们大家见过的这些宣传册和出版物来评判我，因为这些宣传册和出版物精心选录了天主教会领导人的陈述，而且这些陈述往往是在外国，大多是在上几个世纪。当然，这些宣传册和出版物总是略去美国主教在1948年所作的声明，因为此声明强烈主张政教分离，并且更贴切地反映几乎每个美国天主教徒的观点。

我认为这些选录内容不会制约我的公务行为。那么，你们又为何以此来评判我呢?

但我要说，对于其他国家我完全反对国家被任何宗教集团(天主教或新教)所利用，用来强迫、禁止或骚扰其他任何宗教的自由活动。我希望你们和我一起，同样强烈地谴责那些拒绝新教徒担任总统职务的国家和那些拒绝天主教徒担任总统职务的国家。与其引述那些宗教歧视者的劣行，倒不如引述爱尔兰和法国这类国家的天主教会的记录，以及阿登纳和戴高乐这类政治家的独立性。

但我要再次强调，这些是我个人的观点。与常见报纸的报道方法相反，我不是天主教的总统候选人。我是民主党的总统候选人，但恰巧也是天主教徒。

我不代表我的教会谈论公共事务，教会也不代表我说话。作为总统无论有什么问题出现在我面前，无论是计划生育问题、离婚问题、审查制度问题、赌博问题还是其他任何问题，我都会按照这些观点做出我的决定，都会按照我的良知告诉我符合国家利益的方式做出决定，而不在乎外部的宗教压力或要求。任何权威或惩罚威胁都不能让我另作决定。

如果真有这样的时刻，我不可能对某种冲突做出丝毫让步，而我的职务要求我在违背良心和违背国家利益之间做出选择，那么我就会辞去总统职务。而且，我希望任何有良心的公务员都会这样做。

我不打算为这些观点向批评我的人道歉，无论他们是信仰天主教还是信仰新教;我也不打算为了赢得这届选举而否定我的观点或否定我的宗教。

如果我在实际问题上失败了，我将回到我在参议院的位置，并且为我已经尽力而且得到了公正的裁决而感到满意。

如果本届选举确定的基础是4000万美国人在其接受洗礼之日便失去了成为总统的机会，那么整个国家都将是输家。在全世界天主教徒和非天主教徒的眼中是这样，在历史的眼中是这样，在我们自己的人民眼中也是这样。

但另一方面，如果我赢得选举，我就会全心全意地履行总统就职誓言。或许我还可以加一句——这实际上与我在国会14年的誓言完全相同。毫无保留地说，我可以庄严宣誓，我将忠诚地履行美国总统的职务，将尽全力维护、保护和捍卫《宪法》，上帝作证。